Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v. (Smt.) Sandhya Rani Dutta (2001) 248 ITR 201 / 115 Taxman 369 /166 CTR 208 (SC)

S. 4: Charge of income tax – Hindu undivided family – Inheritance – Hindu undivided family ceases to exist without male presence – Inherited property taxable in individual hands.

CIT v. Sitaldas Tirthaldas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC)

S.4: Charge of income-tax – Diversion of income by overriding title or application of Income. [ Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S.3 ]

Arjun Dada Kharate v . Dy.CIT (2020)81 ITR 68 (SN) (Pune) (Trib) Bhima Dada Kharate v Dy. CIT (2020)81 ITR 68 (SN) (Pune) (Trib)

S. 271F : Penalty – Return of income – Failure to furnish – Agriculturist – Bonafide belief that income not chargeable to tax – Levy of penalty is held to be not justified [ S. 139(1) 273B ]

Sarla Mundra (Smt.) v .Dy. CIT (2020 81 ITR 65 (SN) (Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Initiation of penalty proceedings on both charges – Penalty levied on a specific charge of concealing particulars of income —Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [ Explanation 5A ]

Ravindra Anant Bhuskute v ITO (2020)81 ITR 40 (SN) (Pune ) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Capital gains- Bonafide belief – Sale not complete – Failure to disclose capital gains- Levy of penalty is held to be not justified .[ S.45 ]

Surekha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v PCIT (2020)81 ITR 24 (SN( Ctk) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Revision —Housing project —Method of accounting – Adopting Percentage Completion Method And Project- Revision is held to be not valid . [S. 145 ]

Jaidurga Minerals v. PCIT (2020) 81 ITR 67 (SN)/ 208 TTJ 96/ ( 2021) 200 DTR 205 (Cuttack ) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Limitation – Service of order not relevant passing of order is relevant – Not given sufficient opportunity to give reply – Natural justice violated – Order quashed [ S.263(2) ]

Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 81 ITR 48 (SN) (Pune) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Revision —No discussion in assessment order- Mere extraction of submissions would not show assessing Officer applied his mind — Revision is held to be valid .[ S.80IA ]

Electro Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. v PCIT (2020)81 ITR 17 (SN) ( Kol) ) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Income from holiday home- Income from business or Income from other sources – Income from house property – Revision is held to be not valid [ S. 22, 28(i) , 56 ]

Regunathan Venkata Rajendran v. ACIT (2020) 81 ITR 71 (SN) ( Bang) (Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) –Challenging entire Additions- Commissioner (Appeals) Considering only two out of seven items — Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh . [ S.57 , 251 , 254(1) ]